Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday August 09, 2008 @08:15AM
from the read-comprehend-legislate dept.

MojoKid writes with this excerpt from HotHardware:
"According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a
dangerous legal precedent has just been set that can potentially unravel existing federal privacy protections for e-mail and Internet usage. The alert from the EFF is not just to sound a general warning, but it also takes the form of an Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, filed with the federal 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for the court's legal finding to be overturned... The findings of this case
could become the foundation of a legal precedent upon which other similar cases can subsequently be based. If that were to be the case, then the unauthorized retrieving of e-mails from an e-mail server would not be considered a violation of the federal Wiretap Act, which
will then open the door for government-sponsored snooping."

Not to be flippant, but does anyone really believe there is any privacy anymore with simple,
unencrypted email? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the EFF is on the case. But it does seem to me that any expectation of privacy in any communication medium here in the USA went out the window with the news of the NSA telco backdoors. Our government is obsessed with spying on everyone, and they have demonstrated quite thoroughly they don't care about the rules at all.

By not expecting email to be private means that your email provider is allowed to do anything it wants with the information. It means that the government or anyone who wishes to pay for it should be allowed to have it.

Being "not technically secure" is not the same thing as "not private".

By not expecting email to be private means that your email provider is allowed to do anything it wants with the information.

I'm a bit divided about this subject. On the one hand I think that you should be able to expect some privacy in your email conversations. On the other hand I think you're kind of naive to let the privacy of a mail conversation depend solely on the willingness of others to not look at it.

The government, not just the US but any government, cannot be trusted, simply because they're just a bunch of people. The only way to have a reasonable expectancy of privacy is to enforce it yourself by using insane amounts of encryption. e.g. encrypt a message in AES, 3DES, 32768 bit RSA, and ROT13 for good measure, then stenographically encode the message in a photograph. etc. etc.

Laws guaranteeing privacy in email are great, but they don't actually give you 100% certainty that your email will be private.

There's no need to encrypt it that far. A single pass with AES256 should be sufficient. There is no reason to believe that there is any organization on Earth (the NSA included) that can break AES.

If you're willing to go to the "insane" methods you talk about, then you're in the sort of inconvenience level where using one time pads would be worthwhile. You can transfer around gigabytes of OTP material relatively easily and securely these days. I mean you can hide one of those 4gb Micro SD cards just about an

"I mean you can hide one of those 4gb Micro SD cards just about anywhere, resistant even to a strip search. I mean, who's going to check the inside of your pee hole?"

Not to worry citizen, the govt. in all its wisdom and foresight, has thought of this eventuallity, and is currently working on different methods....some are a bit more painful than others, but, you needn't worry about that.

With warrantless taps and the decision by Congress that civil liability for such taps cannot be pursued in court, hasn't the statement

it's reasonable to expect that nobody should. 'Expectation' in this context doesn't mean 'prediction', it means something closer to 'entitlement'.

been invalidated?

Maybe you can say that since it was done by a lame duck Congress+President just a few months before elections, then it's not a real national policy despite now being the law. Fine, we'll defer judgment until aft

If I want communication to be private I snail mail, fax, or phone on landline.

Even if the ISP or whomever cannot share or pry into email for whatever reason, what's to prevent someone from accidentally hitting "reply all" or copying their entire address book and sending it out to the world? That's what I meant by my original statement. It's not so much folks prying, it's "accidents" that I'm worried about.

If I want communication to be private I snail mail, fax, or phone on landline.

Even if the ISP or whomever cannot share or pry into email for whatever reason, what's to prevent someone from accidentally hitting "reply all" or copying their entire address book and sending it out to the world? That's what I meant by my original statement. It's not so much folks prying, it's "accidents" that I'm worried about.

Of course we should take technical precautions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop this through legal action either. It seems like a Sisyphean task at this point, but we have to hold firm to our principles nonetheless.

The idea that any communication involving telecommunication companies in the US is private is quite laughable, however, if there's even going to be the slightest chance of restoring or at least slowing down the rate of erosion of the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy every battle must be fought and thank the matrix we've got the EFF to do it.

Personally I'd sign up for the government spy net - after all, the government doesn't listen to my complaints - if they read everything I write maybe something will sink in.

Exactly. How is unencrypted email different to a postcard? Every server along the path has full access (and probably stores a copy for hours to days) to the contents along with the routing information. Due to addressing problems I was receiving CC orders and other confidential emails for some mail order company, for about two months. I had to respond to every one and tell them not to be so stupid.

The problem is that so few people are set up to read encrypted email, that it isn't useful in day to day work.

Look, the fact that postcards and most emails are sent in plaintext isn't what this is about.

So far as I'm aware, the United States Post Office doesn't scan, OCR, and store the contents of every postcard that goes through its facilities. If they did, and then made that information available to the government or anyone else that wanted it, you would have a point. In other words, unencrypted does not mean "indexed, cross-indexed and searchable."

Actually email is more similar to mail than a postcard in that you do have to open it. Of course there is no way to tell if an email has been opened by someone else.

I am on the side that knows it's not secure, but it is a matter of professional ethics that you should expect that it is private.. Just as you should expect that people in the medical profession will protect your privacy.. Sure anyone in the hospital can find out what's wrong with you, but would you expect the janitor to be fired for looking at

The problem is that so few people are set up to read encrypted email, that it isn't useful in day to day work.

Wrong. Anyone who uses Microsoft Outlook or Mozilla Thunderbird is more than set up to read encrypted email. Personally I use Claws Mail, but using something that's not made by an über-corp certainly isn't a step people need to take.

If you want to give up your personal information, you can go to Thawte [thawte.com] and start sending signed emails right away, which will enable anyone with Outlook or Thunderbird to begin encrypting emails to you. Some people may find cacert [cacert.org] an option, but all-in-all if I needed

I think you are mistaking the "expectation that you do have privacy" with the "the expectation that you should have privacy."
To me, the "expectation of privacy" says that I am supposed to have privacy, not that I have it.

But it does seem to me that any expectation of privacy in any communication medium here in the USA went out the window with the news of the NSA telco backdoors.

That begs the question, and not just for the USA or relating to NSA backdoors (is that the funny all-body underpants you see in Klondiker comedys?), just when, and why, did "any expectation of privacy" come in the window? Particularly in respect of any electronic communications?

So if you have a problem with the government, maybe you need to look at why you are so socially maladjusted.

If the majority of the people chooses a government, which forces people to adjust to its rules, needs and whishes, you could call it a democracy but you couldn't call a free society. I'd rather be free and maladjusted than be a sheep with no principles and opinions of its own.

People with whom I communicate mostly use web-based clients like the GMail client, the Hotmail client, or some university's email site, all of which don't support encryption in an easy-to-use way. Also, at the moment (for several reasons) I happen to be using one of those clients.

Most of the same people don't see why encrypting their emails is neccessary in light of the previous point. Given that it takes a great deal of work do do it, why bother?

Whether I'd like to use encryption or not is irrelevant if those with whom I am communicating do not.

<sarcasm>

Why? Because some governments don't care about the law.

Well, I'm sure you could write them a nice letter asking them if they are illegally syping on you to find out. I see no reason why you wouldn't get an honest answer....

FireGPG puts magic encryption buttons into Gmail's interface for you. It uses gpg to do the heavy lifting. I have used it, and it works. Since it uses gpg the signing key I created to sign debian packages showed right up in the list of keys and I was able to use it to send encrypted gmail. (you can also just sign of course.) You can use PortableApps' version of Firefox to carry it around with you. (Or a USB-bootable Linux.)

If you think your padlock is keeping the Government away (the guys with aircraft carriers and nukes), you must be crazy.

US Government very much cares about the laws since that's about the ONLY thing that can stop them from doing to you what they do to everybody else. For example, the CIA torture manual advises you to always check the local laws first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Torture_Manuals#CIA_manuals [wikipedia.org]

Even if breaking in houses is illegal, I still have a lock on my door. Why? Because some people don't care about the law.
Even if snooping on e-mail is illegal, you still need to encrypt your mails. Why? Because some governments don't care about the law.

megaditto:

If you think your padlock is keeping the Government away (the guys with aircraft carriers and nukes), you must be crazy.

The key, megaditto, is in the word "analogy". No one is trying to stop aircraft carriers with padlocks. (Or maybe padlock was your analogy for encryption and nukes, an analogy for decryption?)

Gah, it's an analogy. Burglars will probably break a window, ignoring the lock on your door. Governments will probably try to read the e-mails at the endpoints, that is when they are stored on your or the reciever's pc. Analogies are not supposed to be 1:1 correct, that's why they are analogies.

And how does maintaining your own email server help? Those outgoing mails are going to somewhere right? And the incoming ones arrived from somewhere? Then they're likely being transmitted in the plain somewhere along the line.

Unless you encrypt the messages themselves, you're on your own. Having your own mailserver, which I do, simply doesn't help with this problem.

"And how does maintaining your own email server help? Those outgoing mails are going to somewhere right? And the incoming ones arrived from somewhere? Then they're likely being transmitted in the plain somewhere along the line. "

Well, you can also set your email coming to you and going out, to hop through several remailer servers, and a nym server [iusmentis.com].

Sure you still have a hole on the receiver end if they don't encrypt, but, it sure can make it hard for the govt. to see where you're sending to...or receivi

Somehow I suspect this is a contributory reason for why USENET is being killed off...

If you really want to make it hard...have the nym server send your messages, encrypted to a USENET group...you can retrieve it from there and no one will be able to really trace what you're doing.

Powers that be, be they governmental or corporate or what-have-you, don't like fully distributed no-one-owns-them systems like USENET. Note too how the intarwebs are becoming increasingly being consolidated as the property of thes

True, running your own mailserver is only half of the solution, but as more people do the same it will become less likely that any 3rd party mail servers will be involved in your email exchanges. Many of my friends have ADSL connections and also run their own private mail servers. In these cases, my exchanges with them are also encrypted.

Getting access to a pile of email that was sent over the course of days to years, I believe, is a much bigger issue. The stream takes good timing, access and preparation. Access to inbox or other folders of an entire email collection is scary. If the private sign leaves the stored email it will allow providers to do what they will with these email documents in the collections of users. Sending a message to a friend about a need for a product could turn into a barrage of ads for same or competing products. Storing old messages with idle threats with a buddy could turn into law suits. There could be corporate theft of ideas and more. How about getting fired from a job for idle discussions of other things you think about regarding other lines of work or even a competing company. Then there are the criminal cases that could be setup against you for some idle "what-if" messages with a child, friend, or co-worker. Information and insight about an individual could cause all kinds of difficulties in the wrong hands. If I wanted someone to be party to a conversation, I would have sent the message to that party when I wrote it.

Email server ownership is a big help in these times. "Guilty until proven Innocent" is the opponent of privacy laws and practice. I do not have the time to waste proving every little aspect of my life was not a crime just because someone came into a conversation late, reading their own storyline into my existence. As it is now in consumer America, I have to open boxes at the checkout counter just to ensure the actual item purchased is in the box, and not just floor tiles. I also have to call phone and credit companies over charges that were added in error. Do I need to mention the corrections on food from a drive through, even after seeing the list in perfect order on the screen before getting to the window?

Exactly. Furthermore, if you want to ensure that the encrypted email doesn't arouse suspicions, you should encrypt all your mail, regardless of how trivial or innocent it seems to be. Besides, you never know when something that seemed innocent could turn up later to bite you in the rear.

Working in the health care field as an IT admin exposes me to lots of HIPAA crap. One thing you learn on day one is that EMAIL IS NOT SECURE. And if it is not secure then considered public. I have no expectation that email is private UNLESS IT IS SECURE.
This is why emailing of patient data is forbidden. It would sure make life easier if it were.

Working in the health care field as an IT admin exposes me to lots of HIPAA crap. One thing you learn on day one is that EMAIL IS NOT SECURE. And if it is not secure then considered public.

I think such generalizations are dangerous. If I send an email to one of my kids, it is sent over an SSL-encrypted link to a private machine. When My kids download it, they do so over an SSL-encrypted session. The email might also be sent onto Gmail. Again, to connection from my mailserver to Gmail is protected by SSL/T

Yes, I agree with you, but letters have a chain of custody (sort of). You can't sniff a letter in the mail carrier's bag. You can steal it and later return it after you have steamed it open, but you don't have to even "steam open" email.

You can use BetterMail for a secure connection to Gmail, but Google still has all your messages and they're unencrypted when they go out from there. In this case store and forward is not your friend.

You could use a simple encryption tool like this one [fourmilab.ch]. It's a little less difficult than a system that requires a key exchange but it's also less secure. And there's still a decryption process. Copy, paste, type pass phrase, read.

If there's something that's easy to implement and lets you exchange encrypted messages with other email clients that don't support your encryption scheme, then I don't know about it. Far as I know you have to make a decision to encrypt or not every time you send a message. When you're sending to a compatible client you can at least encrypt the body of the message, but as far as I'm aware, that's the state of the art.

So not only are businesses and tourists stopping going to the USA because of their over the top (and widely meaningless) security, now the US. wants to finish off their economy with people not doing trade altogether with the US. Smart thinking.

I have discussed this issue with some friends who seem to believe that Obama will reverse the current warrantless surveillance practices. If history is to serve as a guide, it seems clear that he will not. I am convinced that contacting our legislators and voting for Democrats are two of the least effective means of protecting our rights. Indeed, the most effective way of protecting our rights is by asserting them. We as Americans have the responsibility of actively protecting our rights, rather than depending on the ineptitude and conflicted interests of our elected officials. This is why I propose not only opportunistic encryption, but also what I call gratuitous encryption. This means the ubiquitous use and advocacy of PGP, SSH, SSL, VPNs, tor, full disk encryption, and every other tool we have at our disposal.

Unencrypted email is like a postcard. Encryped is like letters in envelopes. So why are people surprised if everybody read their postcards? Encrypting just takes out the content. It does not take out who the sender or reciever is however. And that can be used to extra investigation.

I am sure that when they find out I am mailing to and from Bin Laden, they will be looking closer. If I am however mailing with my lover and I am married, that would be something I migh

Time to revive the good 'ole FIDO mail system and BBS technology. This is not such a bad thing though as it is NOT the internet - it's the phone lines. Hmm.... Oh well, so much for freedom. It was nice while it existed.

Still, one can PGP that style of mail easily and it is by today's standards pretty secure in it's travels to and from. The phone company is involved though so look out. Short of floating our own satellites and running the entire thing end to end, there is NO WAY ANYTHING WE DO from this point on is beyond scrutiny or observation, "we" being those that still believe in the Constitution, Bill Of Rights, etc. and they that watch and record are those we think we'd like to avoid.

I work a FL county GIS and in 1998, our aerial maps were good enough that we zoomed down to look in the back of a co-worker's pickup truck and could easily read "Budweiser" on the case of beer in the truck bed. We were told that the military had these same maps but in 4 or 5 stages better resolution! THAT was 10 years ago - now it's LIVE.

I ran a multi-line BBS for 15 years and hubbed mail for FIDO most of that time. The mail "bags" came in, got sorted and went back out. It was true store and forward technology and with today's packer and encryption options, I believe that FIDO could once again offer relatively secure email. It would take a network though and with each added "node" would come potential trouble. Who's to say that hub in New Hampshire is not the FBI? With the right email client software, the playing field could be vastly leveled - are you listening Santos's?? End to end PGP enabled mail times the quantity factor would be REALLYPGP and the hardware that would have to be dedicated to breaking all that mail would be ridiculous. All this could run on old time BBS systems. Imagine this - NO SPAM (yet).

Not to be flippant, but does anyone really believe there is any privacy anymore with simple, unencrypted email?

Does anyone really believe there is any privacy anymore with ANYTHING? Technology, government and law enforcement practices, and the general public indifference are all converging to insure that nothing is hidden. Rant and rave, fight the good fight, but those of us who give a shit are becoming increasingly rare. It's an out of control freight train that can't be stopped -- delayed maybe, diverted to do less damage perhaps, but unstoppable.

The only thing you can do is try to leave as small a footprint as possible. I know damn well that if someone really wanted to find me, or know my business, they could do so. I long ago abandoned any notion of being able to prevent any and all personal, corporate, or governmental snooping. All I can do is use some common sense, do nothing to call attention to myself, and try to make it as difficult as possible so as to not be worth the effort for all but those who are truly determined. And try to avoid doing the things that would make those determined folks want to find me.

Unfortunately, the list of those things gets longer everyday, and all those peculiar interests and eccentric foibles I used to take pride in may now well brand me as "suspicious" and worthy of further scrutiny.

If selling e-mail off of servers is not wiretapping, then its not wiretapping if the e-mail being sold belongs to the government, GOP, or whomever. Even if that e-mail is encrypted, the traffic analysis data is quite valuable. Law enforcement is way behind the game in link analysis. That is: who phones, or e-mails who, when and how often. That data has been gold to marketing departments for years. Undoubtedly, it will be valuable to political competitors, foreign intelligence agencies and others.

It sounds like the door is wide open for a whole new business plan. The "3) ????" just before "4) Profit!" has now been solved.

I learned from my time working for a web site design company (now long out of business) that even though your connection to a site may be secure, that doesn't mean that the site doesn't immediately forward your submitted form data to an aol.com address without the benefit of any encryption.

Outlook and just about every email client under the sun supports S/MIME. You can get an email certificate from Verisign or one of there competitiors for about $20 bucks for a year. ( there are a lot of CAs these days so choose the best price). The catch is both you and your recipient need certs to encrypt email, however only you need a cert to sign email and have it verified (your recipients email client will verify it for them).
Alternatively there is PGP, which is less common and usually requires plug-in

GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG or GPG) is a replacement for the PGP suite of cryptographic software. GnuPG is completely compliant with RFC 4880, which is the current IETF standards track specification of OpenPGP.

GnuPG is also a world recognized standard. Proper mail clients should support it out of the box.

GnuPG is also a world recognized standard. Proper mail clients should support it out of the box.

Well said! The "trouble" is the PGP model completely decentralises and popularises certification — it's cryptographic anarchy, there is no authority but Number One, and control and responsibility is largely in my hands. I get the impression some people don't really like this idea. With S/MIME I have to trust the certificate authority to do a Proper Job. Heh, no thanks.

What if my love life involves the exchange of money, or my favorite recipe is magic brownies, or my tax return contains inaccuracies (like everyone else's)? Fuck your terrorists, I'm not giving up my freedom, due to unjust laws, just so you can have the illusion of safety.

I know I'm feeding an unskilled troll. I don't care. Maybe he's genuinely stupid and can be set right. Dammit, I've got to try!